Received: from mail-fa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]:38940)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCL3SuIvlExDomfSABRoEMH2pYg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Sxctz-0008MT-Pm; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:52:31 -0700
Received: by fadw1 with SMTP id w1sf592114fad.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authenticated:x-provags-id:message-id
         :date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to
         :x-y-gmx-trusted:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=2bUQpgW93/xJnYlUkHFbF9/Q8cr5nuT6dAEt9OZOaQc=;
        b=jOstfKABjnjuxTH5lZWpcS/Fx8/95V+GmMy3+EsBSaspedE54PJGrBfKWFDpJSHINl
         JSk/Hu/JcrzgZ34mYoxoToYLacnlhWg4IW114tQ/knwd2gvxrknN6FW0mkBlbtMqNJh3
         3+uGjorqQSrPtuFUXjOAcECSqYmupPmc1oXbw=
Received: by 10.180.92.104 with SMTP id cl8mr81674wib.0.1344081128095;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.180.90.134 with SMTP id bw6ls1642231wib.1.canary; Sat, 04 Aug
 2012 04:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.235.32 with SMTP id t32mr247832weq.7.1344081127217;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.235.32 with SMTP id t32mr247831weq.7.1344081127158;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net. [213.165.64.22])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id bb7si362018wib.2.2012.08.04.04.52.07;
        Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=213.165.64.22;
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Aug 2012 11:52:06 -0000
Received: from p57A089FE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.33]) [87.160.137.254]
  by mail.gmx.net (mp036) with SMTP; 04 Aug 2012 13:52:06 +0200
X-Authenticated: #54293076
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19VUQxjfS5V7WiNrOsMUZXdBHjJOFYRZ/kOboU8D7
	xEZkzHtgScn/nl
Message-ID: <501D0CE5.9070306@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:52:05 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.
References: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Original-Sender: seladwa@gmx.de
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=seladwa@gmx.de
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------040106000201070809050602"
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040106000201070809050602
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Am 04.08.2012 08:35, schrieb Gleki Arxokuna:
> *Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.*
>
> Many if not most languages divide all predicates into levels of animacy.
> English, for instance, has at least two levels. These are the pronouns 
> for them
> 1. Animate. He/she
> 2. Inanimate. It
>
> This allows quickly determine agents of most actions.
> Example:
> The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly.
> Let's try it in Lojban.
> {lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}

"ta" does not work for back-referencing. The above sentence would most 
simply be expressed as either (1) or (2):

(1) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i my tolmelbi
     "The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly."

(2) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ny tolmelbi
     "The woman was looking at the mirror. She was ugly."

There is absolutely no need to use (in-)animacity or any other arbitrary 
hierarchy. If you have to, you can always use existing words to specify 
such things, but you don't have to invent new cmavo.

> *Gender-specific pronouns.*
> You might argue why not add more specific markers reflecting for 
> instance the gender of the object described.
> Let's repeat once again.
>
> English has at least two levels. These are the pronouns for them
> 1. Animate. He/she
> 2. Inanimate. It
>
> In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex but only one 
> pronoun expressing inanimate objects.
> There might be languages that split inanimate levels into other 
> specific classes (furniture, houses, weapons).
> Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those quirks of 
> natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.

Yes. If you absolutely have to, you can specify gender/sex through 
various techniques, but forcing the speaker to always do so would imply 
that sex/gender is of primary importance, which in turn would 
potentially support a sexist world-view. If one is not able to talk 
about something without knowing its gender or sex, then that is a 
definite short-coming of the language.

>
> *Unsettled issues.*
> Some languages have "abstractions" in their lowest level of animacy 
> hierarchy.
> Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects and abstractions. 
> The issue with the scale "su'unai - su'u" that one might imagine 
> remains unsettled.

You either have a NU or you don't. What scale are you imagining?

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--------------040106000201070809050602
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><tt>Am 04.08.2012 08:35, schrieb Gleki
        Arxokuna:<br>
      </tt></div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com"
      type="cite">
      <div><tt><b>Suggestion for a new animacy marker in Lojban.</b></tt></div>
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt>Many if not most languages divide all predicates into
          levels of animacy.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>English, for instance, has at least two levels. These are
          the pronouns for them</tt></div>
      <div><tt>1. Animate. He/she</tt></div>
      <div><tt>2. Inanimate. It</tt></div>
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt>This allows quickly determine agents of most actions.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>Example:</tt></div>
      <div><tt>The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>Let's try it in Lojban.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>{lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ta pu tolmelbi}</tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
      "ta" does not work for back-referencing. The above sentence would
      most simply be expressed as either (1) or (2):<br>
      <br>
      (1) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i my tolmelbi <br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The woman was looking at the mirror. It was ugly."<br>
      <br>
      (2) lo ninmu pu ca'o catlu lo minra .i ny tolmelbi<br>
      &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The woman was looking at the mirror. She was ugly."<br>
      <br>
      There is absolutely no need to use (in-)animacity or any other
      arbitrary hierarchy. If you have to, you can always use existing
      words to specify such things, but you don't have to invent new
      cmavo.<br>
      <br>
    </tt>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com"
      type="cite"><tt><b>Gender-specific pronouns.</b></tt>
      <div><tt>You might argue why not add more specific markers
          reflecting for instance the gender of the object described.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>Let's repeat once again.</tt></div>
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt>English has at least two levels. These are the pronouns
          for them</tt></div>
      <div><tt>1. Animate. He/she</tt></div>
      <div><tt>2. Inanimate. It</tt></div>
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt>In other words, English has two pronouns expressing sex
          but only one pronoun expressing inanimate objects.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>There might be languages that split inanimate levels into
          other specific classes (furniture, houses, weapons).</tt></div>
      <div><tt>Therefore, it would be stupid to try to import all those
          quirks of natlangs. {ta poi nakni} is fine.</tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
      Yes. If you absolutely have to, you can specify gender/sex through
      various techniques, but forcing the speaker to always do so would
      imply that sex/gender is of primary importance, which in turn
      would potentially support a sexist world-view. If one is not able
      to talk about something without knowing its gender or sex, then
      that is a definite short-coming of the language.<br>
      <br>
    </tt>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:58935d67-62c7-4949-b2ac-5c20da578d4e@googlegroups.com"
      type="cite">
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt><b>Unsettled issues.</b></tt></div>
      <div><tt>Some languages have "abstractions" in their lowest level
          of animacy hierarchy.</tt></div>
      <div><tt>Lojban is pretty strict when dealing with objects and
          abstractions. The issue with the scale "su'unai - su'u" that
          one might imagine remains unsettled.</tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    <tt><br>
      You either have a NU or you don't. What scale are you imagining?<br>
      <br>
      mu'o mi'e la selpa'i<br>
      <br>
    </tt>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"><tt>-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo</tt></pre>
  </body>
</html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.<br />



--------------040106000201070809050602--